|
loving with social security has been proven to be incredibly unpopular (especially since this is a turd that is already not polling well) so they need to start harping on that heavily.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:WV politics is very clubby when it comes to state leadership roles. A lot of it is who you know, who you have contacts with, and coal / natural resource companies exerting pressure where they can. If you're looking to replace Manchin you need to do so with someone who has been in that state's political circles for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Radish posted:loving with social security has been proven to be incredibly unpopular (especially since this is a turd that is already not polling well) so they need to start harping on that heavily. Between the Social Security and Medicare fuckery they might be able to get the AARP and their associates to oppose the tax plan, that would be a pretty big deal imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:See p. 7 of the 2016 Democrat Party Platform about infrastructure investment, for example. They do mention it alot but people like him who believe this stuff typically aren't based in reality but more based in what whatever they assume the Democrats support without actually following their platform or any of the things they say/do, in order to have a reason to bash them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:See p. 7 of the 2016 Democrat Party Platform about infrastructure investment, for example. We need to cover electrical and sewer grids too tbh, so infrastructure is a good catch-all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:This is the kind of arrogant anti-intellectualism I expect to find more in GOP circles. Your conception of intellectualism is a two-bit cargo cult that blew the gently caress up when put into contact with reality, buddo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:We need to cover electrical and sewer grids too tbh, so infrastructure is a good catch-all. Infrastructure is a good catch-all from a policy discussion standpoint but it doesn't mean anything to your average voter. Telling your average voter that you want to build new roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals is going to be more effective even if its less than completely accurate or all-encompassing because those are concrete things that occupy a central role in most people's lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:In his described scenario the Democrats have already captured the Senate and the Presidency. The Dems would be changing Senate rules to make it more difficult for them to seat liberal justices—potentially forcing themselves to compromise with the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
That's true. I've always been surprised that infrastructure isn't more of an easy pull. You'd figure you could get the national security wing of both parties behind you pretty easily, but no one has bothered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:That's true. I've always been surprised that infrastructure isn't more of an easy pull. You'd figure you could get the national security wing of both parties behind you pretty easily, but no one has bothered. Nah, the neocons are all bald faced liars and know drat well that none of us will see a war on US soil in our lifetimes, there's no actual appeal to building infrastructure under that justification. It only worked in the '50s because Eisenhower had general cred and the Soviet Union was very spooky. Infrastructure isn't an easy sell because of a combination of FYGMism towards paying taxes and a lack of understanding or acceptance that it is necessary to build more. Also probably opposition to the resulting construction disruption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think you might have an easier time understanding the attitude of the people you're arguing with if you understand that they're also fearful of things not changing for the better. I think at some level we're all motivated by fear at this point. Some motivated by fear of losing what they have so they cling to the status quo. Others afraid of what's going to happen if things don't fundamentally change. I'm in the later category. People in this thread have called me privileged because I don't support the Democrats as they exist. I can't take that seriously. The status quo they yearn for lost to a candidate that was sold to the country as a fascist. It's already proven that it can't protect us. The status quo has made this country so desperate and insane that they were willing to throw what they thought was a live grenade through the White House door. I mean, if instead of having a cabinet full of bog standard big business Wall Street types he had a cabinet full of white supremacist Steve Bannon types this poo poo we call a country would already be over. Brony Car posted:See p. 7 of the 2016 Democrat Party Platform about infrastructure investment, for example. By that metric, the Republican party is also a jobs party but I don't think anyone here would argue that is true at all. Edit. I mean the same year of the 2016 platform was penned the same year water protectors were being brutalized in Standing Rock with the Democratic nominee disappearing up her own rear end in a top hat with "well both sides" and the sitting Democratic President was trying to ram through the TPP. How the gently caress am I supposed to take a policy paper seriously when it directly conflicts with what they actually loving do? Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
If memory serves funding for signage saying "This port/road/bridge financed by American Recovery Act" was cut from the 2009 bill, meaning that infrastructure projects financed by the 2009 Stimulus often weren't advertised overtly in the way that New Deal projects were. New Albany, Indiana recently had a bunch of pissed off Chuds when the council renamed a new stretch of road Barack Obama Way in honor of the new industrial park built with those funds. It didn't help that actively linking Obama to this funding was a good way to get a project canceled, like those high-speed rail projects that fell through out of spite from GOP governors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:It didn't help that actively linking Obama to this funding was a good way to get a project canceled, like those high-speed rail projects that fell through out of spite from GOP governors. I'm still really sad that Walker killed high-speed rail here, I wish they had made the line go from Milwaukee all the way out East, it would be a lot easier to visit family then. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:If memory serves funding for signage saying "This port/road/bridge financed by American Recovery Act" was cut from the 2009 bill, meaning that infrastructure projects financed by the 2009 Stimulus often weren't advertised overtly in the way that New Deal projects were. New Albany, Indiana recently had a bunch of pissed off Chuds when the council renamed a new stretch of road Barack Obama Way in honor of the new industrial park built with those funds. Politicians somehow couldn’t find enough money to give themselves credit for likeable real property projects? That’s amateur hour. Iron Twinkie posted:I mean the same year of the 2016 platform was penned the same year water protectors were being brutalized in Standing Rock with the Democratic nominee disappearing up her own rear end in a top hat with "well both sides" and the sitting Democratic President was trying to ram through the TPP. How the gently caress am I supposed to take a policy paper seriously when it directly conflicts with what they actually loving do? I side with the Standing Rock protestors, but technically they were fighting against a job-creating infrastructure project that was popular with a lot of working class voters in the area...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Politicians somehow couldn’t find enough money to give themselves credit for likeable real property projects? That’s amateur hour. but not popular enough for the workers to allow it to be built near themselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I side with the Standing Rock protestors, but technically they were fighting against a job-creating infrastructure project that was popular with a lot of working class voters in the area... This was replayed with the unions standing against Fairfax because he's anti-pipeline and is super dumb in both cases. Short-term jobs to build garbage dirty energy infrastructure that will kill us faster in the macro long term is bad politics and short-sighted thinking. That it's always directed first at minorities is just an extra layer of racist garbage on the pie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
I think it's good to remember that supporting infrastructure investment in general doesn't mean that you have to support every specific infrastructure project, and especially not some dumbshit pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:but not popular enough for the workers to allow it to be built near themselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What does this even mean? it's like body cameras, DR people are fans of the idea, but the people who actually have to wear them don't like them on and recording
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
If Joe Manchin's name was Joe Smith, he would have been crushed in the general eons ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:it's like body cameras, DR OK, still confused. I seriously don't understand what either of you are trying to say. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Of course no one cares about cuts to SS. Bill and Newt were going to do the same thing years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, still confused. I seriously don't understand what either of you are trying to say. Sounds like a reference to this: https://www.snopes.com/dapl-routed-through-standing-rock-after-bismarck-residents-said-no/
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Sounds like a reference to this: https://www.snopes.com/dapl-routed-through-standing-rock-after-bismarck-residents-said-no/  that's an extremely generous "mixture" rating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Nah, the neocons are all bald faced liars and know drat well that none of us will see a war on US soil in our lifetimes, there's no actual appeal to building infrastructure under that justification. It only worked in the '50s because Eisenhower had general cred and the Soviet Union was very spooky. The appropriate way to sell this to the current idiots in power is socialism for business, or more precisely, "Government business subsidization and/or economic development"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The appropriate way to sell this to the current idiots in power is socialism for business, or more precisely, "Government business subsidization and/or economic development" I don't think so. Gop has taken this as a way to frame "give donors kickbacks on the taxpayer's dime in exchange for doing nothing productive."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Like, I get that's a way to sell this to the fucks in power, but right now it would just result in thatcherism
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:This is the kind of arrogant anti-intellectualism I expect to find more in GOP circles. A lot of the people involved are exceptionally dumb. Politics as a rule does not tend to attract or retain the best and brightest but rather those with certain situational advantages or ambitions. Politics by proxy tends to be worse. And intelligent, well educated people can be super dumb anyway when it comes to certain types of situations and problem spaces with certain incentives and thats the situation we have here. They are dumb in very predictable, very obvious ways - the sort of dumb that has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with desire. They might not be dumb because they are stupid, per se, but they are definitely dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:A lot of the people involved are exceptionally dumb. Politics as a rule does not tend to attract or retain the best and brightest but rather those with certain situational advantages or ambitions. Politics by proxy tends to be worse. A lot of words, saying nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:A lot of words, saying nothing. What? “Many high-ranking political people are privileged and don’t necessarily hold their positions because they’re skilled” is a perfectly clear point. You may not agree but he made sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:A lot of the people involved are exceptionally dumb. Politics as a rule does not tend to attract or retain the best and brightest but rather those with certain situational advantages or ambitions. Politics by proxy tends to be worse. You do realize that the people who actually make these models and manage voter data are statisticians and programmers, right? It’s possible to make mistakes, it’s possible for errors to occur, but I don’t make a habit of calling people who do something I can’t dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You do realize that the people who actually make these models and manage voter data are statisticians and programmers, right? being smart or dumb is not just about what you know, but what you do with what you know. bitcoiners used skills you don't have to make ethereum, a "smart" contract system. said system frequently has millions stolen from it because of its poor implementation. would it be anti-intellectualism to say they're dumb?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:being smart or dumb is not just about what you know, but what you do with what you know. bitcoiners used skills you don't have to make ethereum, a "smart" contract system. said system frequently has millions stolen from it because of its poor implementation. would it be anti-intellectualism to say they're dumb? What makes you think that voter models don’t work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You do realize that the people who actually make these models and manage voter data are statisticians and programmers, right? I am in the habit of calling people what they are. "Dumb" is a perfectly valid descriptor for many programmers I know. As a programmer, I know for goddamn sure I am especially dumb about seeing the larger picture of projects I'm working on and genuinely understanding if the project I'm building is the one I should be building. You gotta test that poo poo against reality, rather than living in the land of code and numbers where everything as easy, to tell if you are doing something dumb - and who has time for that? The whole environment encourages that sort of dumbness in so many ways. You generally don't get rewarded for being clever, and trying to be clever or making sure you're building what you should be means you're wasting time and missing targets. Being dumb is easier, faster, and more desireable on the part of the client a good portion of the time. And most programmers I know are smart enough to get away with being very, very dumb. And that's before we get to the fact that things only work as well as the person using them, and the programmers and statiscians may be making the tools but they aren't the ones trying to apply them to real world problems. The best wrench in the world won't stop the flooding when someone uses it to bash the nut off the end of the pipe instead of turning it...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I am in the habit of calling people what they are. "Dumb" is a perfectly valid descriptor for many programmers I know. What makes you think that the models that we have don’t have any connection to reality?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Keith Ellison Believes Democrats Will Take Back the House and Senate
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:What makes you think that the models that we have don’t have any connection to reality? the part where when on-the-ground people in Wisconsin and Michigan reported back to campaign headquarters that they were seeing bad signs, they were told "shut the hell up, the Model says you're fine" hiya, this is stuff I do for a living. allow me to give you Baby's First Why Blind Trust In The Model Is Stupid. take a list of house prices. run a linear regression on them. you will rapidly discover that the ideal house is seven thousand feet long, an inch thick, and made entirely out of fireplaces. bedrooms have a negative coefficient attached to them. clearly, we must trim the model so it matches up better with what we know to be true, because that is insane. the model is only as good as the assumptions you put into it. and when you assume demographics are destiny, and the only people who can be swayed by direct appeals are your fellow wealthy suburbanites? it turns out that your model says -exactly- what the higher-ups want it to say, at the low, low cost of not actually having a goddamned thing to do with reality. it's called the overfitting problem. until last year, the Romney campaign was exhibit A.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Is there a good book like confront and conceal covering obamas second term?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the part where when on-the-ground people in Wisconsin and Michigan reported back to campaign headquarters that they were seeing bad signs, they were told "shut the hell up, the Model says you're fine" Everything about my canvassing experience in Wisconsin was screaming bad news and I trusted the models.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
The Atlantic just put out an article about the tension between the union supporting and the ecological drives within the Democratic Party. It ties in pretty nicely to recent discussions: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/there-is-no-democratic-plan-to-fight-climate-change/543981/
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:21
|
|